Lessons from Florida; or, the dangers of ideological purity and forgetting the main thing

By Richard K. Barry

Two stories caught my eye in recent days that are, I think, related in a very interesting way. The first was about prospective Republican challengers to Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson as he seeks re-election in 2012. I wrote about this a few days ago.

It seems that GOP candidate State Senator Mike Haridopolos is in trouble with conservatives over mixed messages on his support for the Ryan budget plan, which has given his Republican rival, Adam Hasner, something with which to beat him up. Another Republican seeking the nomination, former U.S. Senator George LeMieux, has also been criticized by Hasner for his lack of ideological purity on the same issue.

Hasner's campaign manager, Rick Wilson, said the following:

It took Mike Haridopolos and Senator George LeMieux more than a week to give a straight answer about the only plan in Washington that would cut spending, reform entitlements and save Medicare.

That's not leadership; it's typical finger-in-the-wind politics that define Washington today. What's worse, after being pushed by the media, Senator Haridopolos chose to side with Bill Nelson and Barack Obama to undercut conservatives on the Ryan plan and defend the status quo in Washington.

For his part, LeMieux said later that he would have voted for the Ryan plan and Haridopolos, without specific mention of the plan itself, provided a rather defensive statement of his conservative bona fides in response to the charges. So, those contesting the Republican senate nomination in Florida are going at each other to prove who is a pure enough conservative using the Ryan plan as the litmus test.

Clearly we are going to see more of this sort of thing in congressional and senate races across the country.

The second story I came upon was about comments made by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour reported by Politico that any requirement for ideological purity in the presidential primaries will put the GOP at risk of losing the general election:

We're going to nominate someone for president who doesn't agree with you on everything and who you don't agree with on everything. But I'll tell you what. You're going to agree with them a whole lot more than you agree with Barack Obama.

Barbour went on to say the following:

Remember, in politics, purity is the enemy of victory. We cannot expect our candidate to be pure. Winning is about unity. Winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing.

Whatever Barbour's other failings, he has always been a smart political operative, as truer words about the ins an outs of elections were never spoken.

It is true that Barbour's comments were about the GOP presidential nomination process, but they also apply to senate and house races in an interesting way.

Historically, it is well-known that a Republican politician in Maine is not the same as one in Texas or that a Democratic politician in New York is not the same as one in Arkansas or West Virginia. If your goal is to have as many members of your party in the House or the Senate, then it is generally wise to understand that regional flexibility is important, that national ideological litmus tests do not provide that flexibility.

I don't think it's a stretch to guess that there might be a lot of older voters in Florida who might be rather attached to their Medicare program just as it is. Having one of the Republican senate candidates in the state parsing every statement of his party rivals to ensure that they are in lock step with every nuance of the Ryan plan is a gift to the Democratic incumbent, plain and simple.

Florida Republicans like Haridopolos know that in order to beat a sitting Democratic senator, it will be wise to attempt to square the circle, to indicate support for conservative budgetary principles without necessarily committing, holus bolus, to a plan that is currently and may be even more unpopular by election day.

I am not in the habit of giving advice to Republicans, but they might all want to think about adopting the Barbour mantra: "Purity is the enemy of victory." Say it together now.

Hell, for absolutely no extra charge, I'll offer the same advice to Democrats. Get behind your team with unqualified support no matter how much you may disagree on some particulars because, as Barbour says: "Winning is about sticking together to achieve the main thing."

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's chances for re-election

By Richard K. Barry 

In my never ending quest to get a better handle on the more interesting political races coming up in 2012, I now turn my attention to Democrat Bill Nelson's Florida senate seat.

It's always interesting to see a politician who won the last time by such an overwhelming margin be considered in either a toss-up situation, as both The Cook Report and Roll Call have it, or as only marginally well placed to win, as Rothenberg sees it.

Nelson beat Republican Kathleen Harris in 2006 by a margin of 60.3% to 38.1%. You may recall that, as Florida Secretary of State, Harris played a pivotal role in stealing the presidential election for George W. Bush in 2000 and was, on account of that, a polarizing figure in the campaign before self-destructing. But I digress.

The point is simply that Nelson won handily in 2006 and yet is getting little respect from the leading political prognosticators in the business.

So what do we know?

Well, I think the first thing you'd have to notice is that the relatively new Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott is one of the least popular politicians in the country, and that can't hurt an incumbent Democratic senator's chances in 2012 in the same state. Scott is not alone as an unpopular Republican governor, but he has distinguished himself as a particularly loathsome hack, if I do say so myself.

As Bloomberg reports:

Scott took office in January and by April his disapproval among voters doubled after he called for cutting spending in schools and health care to close a $3.8 billion deficit. In May, his popularity was at the lowest in five months.

So, there's that working in Nelson's favour.

What else can we say?

A Quinnipac University poll released on May 26th had Obama's approval rating in Florida at 51%, admittedly fueled by the killing of Osama bin Laden, but a bump's a bump.

Accord to The Miami Herald, the poll also indicated that the Republicans may have quite a task ahead of them in their attempt to unseat Senator Nelson:

Nelson holds leads of between 20 to 25 points over three hypothetical contenders: former U.S. Senator George LeMieux, Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos and former state Representative Adam Hasner.

It is no doubt early days in determining who the GOP challenger will be, but those are not good numbers for any of them.

Although, Peter Brown, the assistant director at Quinnipac, says that while Nelson appears to be in good shape, he does not win 50% against any of the three putative contenders. For some reason unclear to me Brown calls 50% the "magic threshold" that signals an incumbent will be difficult to beat. It is a nice round number. Maybe that's it.

Whatever the reason, that could be why the major handicappers are calling it a toss-up or very nearly. But Nelson still seems awfully strong especially considering one more number from the poll indicating that he has an approval rating of 51%, including 39% among Republicans.

I do note that a Public Policy Polling poll from December 2010 had Nelson with a job approval rating of just 36%, a disapproval rating of 33%, and another 31% not sure. This, of course, would have been back in the dark days after the disastrous midterm elections, but it does indicate a certain volatility amongst voters in The Sunshine State.

The same poll suggested that Jeb Bush would be the only Republican with a realistic chance of beating Bill Nelson, but, so far, apart from a Facebook page urging Jeb to run, I'm not finding much indication that Mr. Bush is so inclined. I suppose that could change.

Not for nothin', but, baring surprising developments, this race sure looks like the kind that hinges strongly on how well Obama ends up doing. In fact, we could say that about almost all of the Democratic senate races that are deemed close at this point, which may end up being good news for the Dems since I think Obama will do just fine in 2012.

Come to think of it, I'm not all that worried about Senator Nelson after all, no matter what Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg think. What do they know?

But in all seriousness, if you go back to just after the midterms, it seemed like it wasn't that hard to find people writing Nelson's political obituary and now not so much. I wonder how many twists and turns there will be on this one before November 2012? Maybe that's what Cook and Rothenberg know.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Rick Scott 2012

By Mustang Bobby

From Adam C. Smith of the St. Petersburg Times via the Miami Herald:

Rick Scott for president in 2012?

Absurd as it sounds, people who have talked to Florida’s tea party governor about the Republican presidential field are convinced Scott has a bid lurking in the back of his mind.

“I’m not running for president,’’ Scott declared last week.  Probably he won’t.

But let’s say the field of Republican candidates still looks muddled and uninspiring come November. Let’s say no one has managed to persuade Jeb Bush or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to get in the race. Let’s say fed-up tea party activists still dominate the GOP primary electorate and show no enthusiasm for the “electable” Mitt Romneys, Tim Pawlentys and Jon Huntsmans of the world.

[...]

Any normal politician would recognize the ludicrousness. One of the nation’s most unpopular governors, not even a full, rocky year into the job, running for president?

Remember, though, Scott is no normal politician. A lot of people thought it nuts for a fellow known mainly for running a company that paid the biggest Medicare fraud fines ever to think he could win statewide office — in Florida.

Scott pulled it off, though it took spending more than $70 million of his own money. That was only about one-third of his net worth last year, so he still has plenty to self-finance a formidible campaign operation in early primary and caucus states.

Another consideration: Scott often appears to care much more about his perception in national circles than in Florida.

He appears constantly on Fox News. He’ll show up for the opening of an envelope in Washington if it involves hob-nobbing with Beltway celebs. He caught the political bug founding Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, a group to combat healthcare reform, and constantly frames issues in a national context. Barack Obama was more of a foil in his gubernatorial campaign than Democrat Alex Sink, and he still frequently criticizes the president by name.

Folks outside of Florida may laugh, but here in Florida this dude has been doing his business for five months, and by any objective measure, he's a disaster. I know card-carrying life-long Republicans who shudder at the mention of his name. One of them said the reason Mr. Scott is bald is because he can't comb his hair; his image won't appear in a mirror.

There's no doubt that he has always had his eye on national office. Why not? In Republican circles, his record of shady business and corruption is a feature, not a bug. And while he campaigned on putting Florida to work, he and the GOP legislature decimated the state budget for schools and the environment, gave a lot of tax breaks to his rich friends, ran roughshod over the rights of doctors and women, and passed a bill regulating baggy pants in high school and outlawing sex with "dumb animals." (So the legislature took a vow of celibacy?) He's teabagger catnip.

There's a move afoot to amend the state constitution to recall the governor. It would be an arduous process, and by the time it's actually done, Mr. Scott's first term will be up, he'll be in the joint, or he'll be Michele Bachmann's vice presidential running mate. One way or another, his reign of terror in Florida will be over.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The Province of Florida

By Mustang Bobby.

NPR's Greg Allen had a report on Friday's All Things Considered about how Canadians are snapping up Florida real estate in record numbers thanks to the housing crash here and the strong economy in Canada.

The cars in a parking lot at Walmart in Hallandale Beach, near Fort Lauderdale, tell the tale. About 1 of out every 10 vehicles is from Canada. It's February; the weather is warm in Florida, so many are visiting tourists. But other Canadians are putting down roots.

One recent transplant, Doug Flood says, "If there ever was an 11th [Canadian] province, it probably would be Florida."

That got me thinking; with the U.S. economy in trouble and people from other countries willing to invest here, maybe Mr. Flood is on to something.  In order to balance the books, maybe we could do what a lot of people do when they're in financial straits: sell off property.  So maybe we could put out feelers to Ottawa: how much would they pay to buy Florida?
 
It would take a couple of appraisals, but I'm willing to bet that it would go for at least $10 trillion.  That would put a big dent in the deficit, and it would save the U.S. a lot of money in the future by not having to defend the southern border against flotillas of boat people coming from Haiti and drug smugglers coming in from other places.  And since Canada has full diplomatic relations with Cuba, the exile community here could travel back and forth to see their friends and families any time they wish instead of having to jump through all the ridiculous hoops that the State Department and Treasury make them go through just to get their abuelita a cell phone.

Going Canadian has some other advantages.  Their economy is stable, thanks to strong banking regulations that would have prevented the housing crash.  Their Charter of Rights and Freedoms is just as strong as the Bill of Rights.  For the liberals, Canada is a paradise with marriage equality for all people, strong gun-control provisions, and a foreign policy that basically says, "Hey, we're a big country but we're not obnoxious about it."  And for conservatives, there's a long tradition of hunting and fishing for the rednecks, and for the country-clubbers there's that link to the British heritage that still makes a big deal about class differences.  Canada is a part of the Commonwealth, and Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada.  Most Republicans are secretly monarchists, anyway; they've always believed in the divine right of elderly white people with lots of property being in charge of the masses.  And when Fantasy Fest rolls around in Key West, we could invite the Queen to participate in the festivities; a Queen among queens, as it were.

Canadian politics are generally more liberal than they are here; the farthest right-winger up there would be a moderate Republican here, and they have such things as single-payer healthcare administered by the provinces (which amounts to Medicare for all, regardless of age), along with private doctors and insurance, too, so there's the best of both worlds.  They also have a parliamentary system.  It's a lot like our system, with a lower house elected by the people and a senate (although their senators are appointed by the government and basically do nothing), but in their case the leader of the political party with the most seats is the Prime Minister, and he or she can be voted out any time by a vote of No Confidence.  Imagine doing that to John Boehner.

Other good points: the Canadian national anthem is much more singable and the lyrics are pretty easy.  The flag is simple: red and white with the maple leaf in the middle.  (The Florida provincial flag could have a palm frond.)  Both English and French are the official languages, but I'm sure we could work Spanish in there somehow.  They have different holidays than we do, but they're close to ours; Canada Day -- their Fourth of July -- is July 1, and instead of Memorial Day in May, they have Victoria Day around the same time.  They have Labour Day when we do, and their Thanksgiving is in October instead of November.  Retailers would love that; it adds six weeks to the Christmas shopping season.  Their money is the same as ours with dollars and cents, and their bank notes are very colourful.  The only thing we'd have to get used to is calling the dollar coin a "loonie," named for the bird on the back of the coin.  (The two-dollar coin is called, naturally, the "toonie.")  They have a form of football like we do; in fact, a lot of Americans have played in the Canadian Football League.  The rules are a little different -- three downs instead of four and 110 yards instead of 100 -- but it's football, not soccer, so the Dolphins, Buccaneers, and Jaguars could easily adapt, and they might even win a few games.  For those of us who love the arts, Canadians have always been strong supporters of theatre, art, and music.  Oh, and they do know how to make really good beer and whiskey.  As for technology, Waterloo, Ontario, is the home of the company that came up with the BlackBerry.  (But we won't hold that against them, I suppose.)

There are some downsides:  Canada uses the metric system, so there would be a lot of confusion for those who still don't know a meter (or a metre) from their foot.  Taxes are higher, depending on the province.  But I'm sure we could work things out; most of our cars already have metric speedometers (look at the little numbers inside the gauge) and buying gas by the litre wouldn't change how big your gas tank is.  You could also go 100 on the Palmetto Expressway in Miami...assuming you know that it's only 62 mph, and assuming the traffic isn't bumper-to-bumper.

But the really big question is whether or not Canada would take us.  Sure, they're buying up all the land and vacant homes and shopping at Wal-Mart and we provide a winter refuge for most of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; in Hollywood, Florida, you see as many signs that say Ici on parle français as you do Se habla español.  But would they want to buy this distressed property?  It's a nice place to visit, but it's a real fixer-upper if you're going to buy.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Right-wing Republican judge rules health-care law unconstitutional

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So what else is new?

Republican-appointed judges, embracing conservative judicial activism (even if they would deny it), are ruling against the Affordable Care Act and basing their decisions on spurious legal reasoning:

A second federal judge ruled on Monday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact a health care law that required Americans to obtain commercial insurance, evening the score at 2 to 2 in the lower courts as conflicting opinions begin their path to the Supreme Court.

But unlike a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that the insurance requirement was so "inextricably bound" to other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law.

"The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker," Judge Vinson wrote.

How odd that Vinson's words are a metaphorical version of the standard Republican talking point -- repeal and reform, even if Republicans have no alternative plan and no intention of introducing one anytime soon. (It's important to note, too, that Vinson based his decision to a great extent on the views of the right-wing, theocratic Family Research Council, hardly an impartial source.)

Ultimately, the law will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, so it doesn't much matter how these lower courts rule. Although, of course, the Supreme Court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, is partisan and, when it wants to be, activist. (Kennedy will likely be the swing vote, as usual.)

But Steve Benen makes some excellent points in putting this latest ruling into perspective:

First Update: Note that when Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia, a Bush appointee, reached a similar conclusion in December, in a ruling that no one seemed to think made any sense, he said the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but left the rest of the law intact. Reagan appointee Vinson, however, took a far more activist approach, striking down a massive piece of legislation because of one provision.

Republicans are thrilled, of course, because activist court rulings are to be celebrated, just so long as it's activism the right can agree with. 

Second Update: It's also worth emphasizing that two Republican-appointed federal district court judges have now found that the individual mandate -- an idea Republicans came up with -- is unconstitutional. And while that's important, let's not forget two other federal district court judges, appointed by Democratic presidents, came to the opposite conclusion.

Indeed, overall, about a dozen federal courts have dismissed challenges to the health care law.

In other words, when you hear on the news that "courts" have a problem with the Affordable Care Act, remember that it's actually a minority of the judges who've heard cases related to the law.

Aside from the obvious activism on display here, that last point is crucial. Only two judges, both Republican-appointed, have ruled against the mandate (the second also against the entire piece of legislation). The media focus disproportionately on these negative rulings, rulings that would seem to validate the Republican position, but the reality is that the law, including the mandate, has thus far been upheld everywhere else.

There's hardly any guarantee that the Supreme Court will uphold the law, but claims of the Affordable Care Act's demise are greatly exaggerated.

Season's greetings

By Capt. Fogg

If you thought there was a silly season in Florida, you're right. If you think the season is shorter than 52 weeks, then I would disagree, although a case can be made that as long as the legislature is in session, idiocy is in season.

But there are high points, special events worthy of special status, although which ones to celebrate differ from political faith to faith. I don't know how Florida's "smaller government" believers took the statement by one state representative against a bit of legislation forbidding anyone to participate in or watch for purposes of pleasure any sexual act including animals with the exception of the requirements of animal husbandry, but she seemed to understand that as allowing female humans to marry animals and she certainly opposed that, thank you very much.

It's hard to stand out as an idiot in a Florida crowd, but perhaps the following resolution, which was introduced last Christmas Eve by Sen. Gary Siplin, an Orlando Democrat, that would designate "Merry Christmas" as the official state greeting for December 25 will come close: 

WHEREAS, Christmas, a holiday of great significance to most Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world, and

WHEREAS, on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, and

WHEREAS, popular modern customs of the holiday include gift-giving, music, the exchange of greeting cards, a special meal, church celebrations, and the display of Christmas trees, lights, and nativity scenes, and

WHEREAS, many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world celebrate Christmas as a time to cherish and serve others, NOW, THEREFORE,

Be It Resolved by the Senate of the State of Florida:

That “Merry Christmas” is recognized as the State of Florida’s official greeting for December 25. 

Can anyone make up stuff like this? I can't, and I wouldn't dare clog up the wheels of progress, if I'm still allowed to advocate it, with such Christmas fruitcake legislation while Florida is at the top of the unemployment and foreclosure heap. And yes, Siplin is a Democrat, and no, there's no false equivalence here. I report, you decide, and let the batshit fall where it may.

If it passes or does not, it's a gift to cynics that keeps on giving and it seems that every time the legislature meets it is indeed Christmas. Just don't ever call it a holiday.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)